Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: deadpolitics Date: Sep 1, 2010 8:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/30/former-tour-manager-for-grateful-dead-and-rolling-stones-compare/

"The Grateful Dead were a bunch of hippies"

Clearly he hasn't been to a Grateful Dead / reincarnated versions of the band in a while... grandmas and toddlers abound...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Sep 1, 2010 9:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

I saw that interview when channel surfing the other night. He talks about how he brought the Stones' model to the Dead's organization and dramatically increased their concert revenues.

BTW, Rock Scully's daughter has been working as an asst to Jagger for years now since she left BGP. The ties b/w the two bands are long and deep... As it is b/w The Who and GD.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Sep 1, 2010 9:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

that especially always made me happy about the WHo and the Dead. Townsend WAS a punk in those days with a disdain for hippies and politicos. So for the band to not be lumped in somehow in my mind gives them the alternative street cred they deserved. Not as good as a Zappa endorsement maybe but...

Which reminds of a Lou Reed quote saying he dispised all the SF bands except Moby Grape. I wonder why just them?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 1, 2010 10:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

Don't know the specifics, but as I have bored you with before, and Bill (UU) will support, many locals picked MG as THE band of the early SF sound...my brothers, again, put them at the top.

I liked/like their sound, but it is rather narrow, with little real experimentation, blah, blah, blah...?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Sep 1, 2010 10:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

How does Quicksilver fit into that equation? I really love some of their live stuff that I've heard from the earlier era.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Sep 1, 2010 12:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

yeah QMS has some killer stuff, the vocals kind of ruin it for me too. But to hear Chip and Duncan tear it up is pretty intense. I wish there was more live circa 68 Airplane too. Same setlists but to hear Jorma and Jack dominant the band like that is pretty right on imo. Leave the vocals on the album and listen to them just run that band.

James Gurley is way under rated too. Don't know how to play so don;t really know if he was any good but he sure pounded the shit out of that thing while most everyone else has that cute thin 60/s sound. Him and Chip

To me several of the bands were more brutal than what the Dead were doing but then they imploded, exploded, and burned out whereas slow and steady won the race I guess huh?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Sep 1, 2010 12:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

Did you know this?

JEFFERSON AIRPLANE TAKES OFF

Jefferson Airplane
The argument rages on, but for many music fans in the ’60s, the best live band from the Bay Area was Jefferson Airplane. The Airplane featured three master instrumentalists (Jorma Kaukonen, Jack Casady and Spencer Dryden) and three vocalists: Grace Slick (replacing original singer Signe Anderson in 1966), Marty Balin and Paul Kantner. The Rock ’n’ Roll Hall of Fame inductees made a total of eight studio albums and released a smattering of live albums including 1969’s Bless Its Pointed Little Head.

But what most fans don’t know is that there are vast reserves of never-released live material by Jefferson Airplane capturing key moments in their history. On October 26, 2010, Collectors’ Choice Music Live will release four previously unreleased live albums: Live at the Fillmore Auditorium 10/15/66 Late Show — Signe’s Farewell, Live at the Fillmore Auditorium 10/16/66 Early & Late Shows — Grace’s Debut, Live at the Fillmore Auditorium 11/25/66 & 11/27/66 — We Have Ignition, and Return to the Matrix 2/1/68.

Taken together, the four releases confirm that at its best, when Jorma was soaring, Jack rumbling and the three voices joining in ecstatic melisma, no other band could ascend to the heights attained by the Airplane. Hand-picked by a team of devotees and featuring rare photos inside handsome digi-packs, these concerts distill and express the dream and promise of the Haight-Ashbury scene.
http://www.jambase.com/articles/story.aspx?storyID=23695

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 1, 2010 2:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

One brother always said he liked the orig gal better than Grace...I've only heard a little of it, and don't see (er, "hear") it, but perhaps live? He saw them in 66, I think, with her, and then never liked "the replacement"...

I think J hit the nail on the head; MG went south fast; QMS had lots of personel changes, and then went south; JA peaked a little after MG & QMS, I think, but also really blew themselves up...By 1970, with the two albums, again, my bros and friends were willing to say "ah, now the DEAD are finally the best band in the area..." or some such. They did give them a lot of credit for sticking with it, if you will. Not sure that counts for too much, but defn counts for something, eh?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Sep 1, 2010 1:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

no I didn't thanks! I have some 66 and some 67 and there's some good stuff but they were still kind of doing the folksy thing. I'm interested more in late 67 and 68, 69. the ferocious stuff like Bless its pointed little head where Jack just stomps the hell over everybody's head. That 68 one is just the ticket. I think I have that one if it's the Matrix one BUT the pitch is clearly fast so it's a joke to listen to. Killer setlist though. Thanks for the link

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 1, 2010 11:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

Oh, right with them; they used to say "MG is THE band, and QMS is much better at what YOU think you like, kid!" (ie, the jams by the DEAD I would suggest were unique; they'd come back with HTrails-esque stuff).

Speaking of JB (weren't we? har), I have always had a place in my heart for "top five bass lines/solos" and it's from the intro, first ten minutes or so of the whole Who do you Love biz off HTrails, that just really grabs you I always thought...almost as good as SOYLove...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Sep 1, 2010 10:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

yeah I've never been able to hear what makes them more special. I'd like to check out that live one someone posted a link to awhile back

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: TOOTMO Date: Sep 1, 2010 10:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

http://tela.sugarmegs.org/_asxtela/asxcards/MobyGrape1965-69LiveDarkMagic.html

This is a collection of live tracks and it has a ton of "liner notes"-type info.

TOOTMO

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Sep 1, 2010 6:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

As the Prime Minister said, Moby Grape was considered THE BAND in the early days of the San Francisco music scene. They were the most polished, professional and probably the most talented of a very large group of musicians living in the Bay area. Unfortunately they were plagued with ego-trips, mental problems, and shady management which led to a quick implosion. The "flash in the pan" history, coupled with failed efforts, by band members and managers, to resurrect the faded glory has left them as a mostly overlooked remnant of The San Francisco Scene.

The eponymous first album is a "must have" for anyone delving into Moby Grape. Ten of thirteen tunes were released as singles. "In 2003, the album was ranked number 121 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time., ahead of Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (146), The Byrds' Greatest Hits (178), Buffalo Springfield Again (188), Grateful Dead's Live Dead (244), Big Brother and the Holding Company's Cheap Thrills (338), and The Doors' albums L.A. Woman (362) and Strange Days (407)."

"WOW" is a strong follow up, though it shows minor signs of "sophomore slump". It is more "polished" and heavily arranged.

"Grape Jam" was much looser and improvisational. Michael Bloomfield and Al Kooer were involved in the studio sessions that became "Grape Jam". It is actually the first rock recording utilizing the "super group" ideology that lead to the "Bloomfield-Kooper-Stills Super Session"

"Vintage: The Very Best of Moby Grape", originally released in 1993, is a good retrospective of the band's studio output.

And thanks for the link to "Dark Magic". I am "grabbing" it now.



This post was modified by user unknown on 2010-09-02 01:52:16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Sep 1, 2010 2:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

In Barry Miles Zappa bio, he mentions an early gig (66?) with The Mother, The Airplane, and The Velvet Underground , and how lousy Reed though Mothers were .
It was that , hate triangle of LA, SF, NYC . Competition, and regional bias, and mistrust .
I recall Garcia's comments about The Doors , and the general distrust of LA and what it represented .
It's funny, today , we might say "Those bands together , WOW!" .
Generally, as a "scene" and as live shows, I like the SF bands ( our boys, and QSM, especially ). For albums, like what came out of LA (Pet Sounds, Younger Than Yesterday, The Doors, Freak Out, Trout Mask, Forever Changes, Buffalo Springfield Again,etc. , etc., etc.).
On the sometimes forgotten SF front, 'Country Joe and the Fish', that first album was a LOT my psychedelic than , say the first 2 Airplane albums, or the first Dead record ( made up for it with Anthem !).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 1, 2010 2:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

I think there's a lot of that, you know? You can add "London" to the scheme, though I suppose it's a weird rectangle then, huh? Anyhow, I can recall even getting quotes out of the boys, like one I wrote down by Lesh, saying the "Beatles were never really into the revolution" (ie, Beatle bashing, which I appreciated at the time as it was "counter pop" if you will, but now, all you hear is how they loved them it seems to me, though most non SF area folks still seem to maintain a somewhat negative view of the whole music scene there if they're "professionals" talking about the past [like CREAM, whomever]).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: vapors Date: Sep 1, 2010 6:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

What have we to show today to best describe/exemplify the revolution? Hereabouts our most concrete format of communication/understanding is based on the recorded music, whether it be live and at our fingertips through this site, or by intimate familiarity garnered by repeated playing of our lps of yesteryear. The other revolution/s we witnessed/embraced (or ignored) back in those days are not my focus – while they might emanate the values/attitudes or beliefs, music is what lasts and brings the message to the later generations. I recycle, compost, and try to buy local. Good luck convincing me that it will make a difference – but I believe music has that potential. It’s a connection that exists between the brain, the ears, and if one is real lucky - the funk bone.

Some bands made it big. The Beatles (and me) can be dealt a lot of shit in our worldly wizened analysis, but by golly I believe they embraced the revolution and brought it to the world.

In 1967 George Harrison wrote one of my favorite tunes of all time, began side two of Pepper with it, and I’ll lay on the floor to this day and listen repeatedly (engaging the repeat function of my deck, because When I’m Sixty Four just spoils it.)

With our love we could save the world.

Hey Tell, this was just a rambling on my part, not sure where it ended up. No harm intended.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadpolitics Date: Sep 5, 2010 9:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

Hey, just caught this post and I must say this is a brilliant flash, my good man! The psychedelic music that we love has been the soundtrack to so many individual revolutions and evolutions, mine included. Somehow when I began my experimentation with other states of consciousness, I began to listen to "GOOD" music like GD, Jimi, The Who, Pink Floyd, The Doors, ABB, Beatles. The Beatles were a group that I had returned to after a long hiatus from a childhood love.

For me, the soundtrack is inseparable from the experiences that I've had. I mean, if "the world goes on within you and without you" is not speaking directly to the individual undergoing an evolution in consciousness and revolution against the ingrained Western mindset then I don't know what is!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: advokat Date: Sep 6, 2010 12:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: NEW WAVE DANCE BAND!

Phony beatlemania has BITTEN THE DUST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5B797VQuDI

All you need is love? Love never paid the rent. Keef Richards (paraphrased)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ9v0TQv9wo&;feature=related

With or without you.....


This post was modified by advokat on 2010-09-06 07:18:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadpolitics Date: Sep 6, 2010 7:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: NEW WAVE DANCE BAND!

Hey you callin' me a phoney?

Litigate this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHEx-sFs-yY

That's my band (I'm the skinny white guitarist guy not singing in the back) doing London Calling and the beginning of Stand By Me at the talent show on my university campus 2.5 yrs ago... yeah its kinda rough but it's evidence, of some sort!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: advokat Date: Sep 6, 2010 12:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: NEW WAVE DANCE BAND!

Not you - Beatlemania!

I'm with vapors - more.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadpolitics Date: Sep 6, 2010 8:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: NEW WAVE DANCE BAND!

My Holden Caulfield side got the best of me there, advokat!

Here's a clip of I Will Survive from the next year's talent show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDUY1qXmqGg

Here's 15 seconds of Rock This Town as we get booties shakin': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPxqaMHnmNY&;NR=1

While I'm at it how bout a drunk ass, 3.5 yr old, St. Patty's day rehearsal of Dan's original "Summertime Blues": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MutdbiN03U



This post was modified by deadpolitics on 2010-09-07 03:32:28

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: vapors Date: Sep 6, 2010 12:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: NEW WAVE DANCE BAND!

Encore! Encore!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Sep 1, 2010 2:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Moby Grape

I'd guess Lou Reed liked Moby Grape because they did real pop songs without much rambling, unlike the other big SF groups.
Of course, that's what makes them less interesting to me....but they must have been a contrast at the time, coming on with all these tight songs when other SF groups were doing half-hour improvs with warbling off-key vocals!
The recent "Moby Grape Live" release has a lot of the same tracks as the bootleg TOOTMO linked to. My own favorite track is "Dark Magic", a really nice long jam - wish they'd done more like that.
The "Grape Jam" record they released with Wow, I have to admit I didn't like at all....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Sep 1, 2010 6:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Moby Grape

light, what did you think of "Miller's Blues"(Avalon 1968)? But I guess it is more the "Grape Jam" sound, which you said you weren't that fond of.

That's as far into it as I've gotten into the compilation.


This post was modified by user unknown on 2010-09-02 01:42:54

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Sep 2, 2010 2:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Moby Grape

Actually, I like that version of Miller's Blues a lot - very intense, nicely played.
That collection of live Moby Grape shows a lot of their strengths as a live band. But I still like Dark Magic the most!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Sep 1, 2010 3:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Moby Grape

that makes sense LIA. I'd figure he's have more in common with big brother with doing the H and all.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Sep 1, 2010 1:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Stones & Dead (& the Who)

I'm not sure I'd call the ties between the Stones & the Dead "long & deep"....basically they had no contact outside of late '69 that I recall.
Of course the Dead were admirers of the Stones from their early days, like most other American bands. (Everyone should check out the TAMI Show that was recently released, a '64 event where the Stones had to follow James Brown onstage - it's remarkable how much the Stones outclass every other white band in the show, with a much darker, bluesier sound, which is exactly what the Dead wanted to go for in '65/66.)
Their connection came when Rock Scully went to London in '69 to try to arrange a free concert there (after the Stones' successful Hyde Park show). He became friends with Sam Cutler, they talked about the Stones doing a free San Francisco show, and that's how the Altamont process started. Garcia also liked Cutler when they met; after Altamont, Cutler cut loose from the Stones, hung out with Garcia for a while, and that's how he got into the Dead organization & became their road manager.
He was fired in January '74, mainly since a lot of other people in the Dead organization didn't like him. (There was a lot of infighting & bickering in the Dead's management team, as various scoundrels came & went.) One of Cutler's supporters felt that "he should have been left to do his job if he hadn't been stabbed in the back...Jerry was nonconfrontational and wouldn't stand up for him."
Cutler said about Garcia: "If I'd had a gun, I would have shot the miserable sod and put him out of his misery then and there!... To have that spineless and easily influenced man tell me what he told me (in public!) when I was effectively 'fired' was the most humiliating thing that has ever happened to me, and I said not a word in reply. But I never forgave him, and I never will. It was the act of a moral coward."

Anyway, back to the Stones, there's a story of their Oakland shows in late '69. Betty Cantor says, "They blew up all their equipment at the first show. They had all this Ampeg equipment, and it just went Fffftt! They were in a panic, so Ramrod and Jackson raced to our warehouse and brought down a bunch of our Fender amps for them, and the next show we sat up onstage while they played, and it sounded amazing... The first time Keith played through Jerry's amp, he turned around and looked at the amp, and his mouth dropped open. 'Whoa!' He couldn't believe the power and clarity."
Bear adds, "Still, the next day Ampeg rushed more amps & speakers to them, and they went on as if nothing had happened, but the fact is the Stones' gear was woefully inadequate."

As for the Who...their connection with the Dead was rather minimal, but they respected each other. The Dead had to go on after the Who at Monterey - as McNally reports, "Standing at the side of the stage, Lesh muttered, 'We have to follow this?' Kreutzmann threw up and became convinced his hand was frozen."
Garcia later said, "We were scheduled to go on after The Who. They had been out at our motel all the previous night trying to get Pigpen to come out. 'Cause they’d heard about Pigpen and they wanted to party with the Pig. He wasn’t having any, he wasn’t opening the door for no English guys. Anyway, we’d heard a little about The Who by reputation but we had no idea what their act was like. So we’re standing there watchin’ and their music is good...then they do their destructo routine. We didn’t realize they’d made an art of blowing shit up. It wasn’t just something they did, they were good at it. So we’re standing there amidst the debris and smoke and it’s time for us to go on. I don’t think anybody even saw us, they were still recovering from The Who. So we went on and played our set and then Jimi came on and just annihilated the place and then he destroyed all his shit, too. We might as well not have been there."

They also played a couple shows together in October '76, and got along well. Townshend was amazed that the Dead hadn't repeated songs in two shows, since the Who played the same set at every show! (Which shows that he wasn't too familiar with the Dead.) The Dead also played after the Who on 3/28/81 (by Townshend's invitation), and Pete appeared in the Dead's show. He was still unfamiliar with their music and had to have chords shouted at him - he was surprised at having to keep up, since he thought they never rehearsed!

This is a good article by Justin Kreutzmann on the Who & the Dead:
http://blogcritics.org/music/article/memories-from-the-road-the-who/

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Sep 1, 2010 2:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Stones & Dead (& the Who)

Well, it was nice of the Who to lend equipment for that little trip to Egypt.

The Day on the Green - just another gig.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: barongsong Date: Sep 1, 2010 10:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

Yea It's True, Jerry brought him in to the scene to "actually make money on tour". The Dead were in serious debt to the record companies in 69-70 and the Stones had just dumped Sam to take the Altamont Weight. He basically saw the scene and said you guys can dig yourselves out on tour. Lets hit the road and you have the dead touring nonstop till 74! Burnout yes... Grate Ful Dead.. you be the judge.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: duckpond74 Date: Sep 1, 2010 9:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sam Cutler (former manager) talks of differences between Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead

"as American as apple pie"